memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= *Category:Astronomical phenomena New category. - 16:05, June 27, 2010 (UTC) *Category:Subspace phenomena New category. - 21:47, July 22, 2010 (UTC) =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Non-corporeal beings We already have a list of about 30 species. Given that we know of quite a few entities/individuals from some of these, there are probably 50-60 articles that would fit this. Two ways we could approach this: * One category that includes both individuals and the species (easier, since in some of these cases, the lines are skewed) * OR we could have separate cats for the individuals and the species. --- Jaz 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC) :Support first option. - 09:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, I think the first option would probably be easier to do, maybe name it "Non-corporeals" or something, although I suppose "beings" would work as well, but are they really "beings" in all instances? --Terran Officer 22:43, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Events Based on the two below, I purpose this tree under Lists: *Category:Events **Category:Expeditions (or missions) **Category:Conflicts (now under Events) *Category:Astronomy **Category:Astronomical objects **Category:Astronomical phenomena I know Cid already said he didn't like the phenomena name, but from what I can tell, this would only cover Siren calls, the Nexus, and maybe the Fornax Disaster, all of which were naturally occurring as far as we know, and the disaster could just be placed under Events if it's a problem. - 09:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC) :"Siren calls" and "Nexus" do in fact sound as if a "Phenomena" category might be appropriate for them - but in that case, I don't see how "Phenomena" could itself be categorized as "Event". "Fornax Disaster" is a disaster is an event, and not a phenomenon. However, the generic Supernova could be categorized as a phenomenon - in addition to or perhaps even instead of as an "astronomical object". In any case, Category:Astronomical objects should be checked for potential overlap or recategorization, and perhaps a suggestion be made how the new "phenomenon" category might relate to that objects category (if it needs to relate at all). :Regarding "Events" and subcats "Expeditions" and "Conflicts" - I'm no longer totally opposed to that, but at the same time, the categorization of expeditions as events somehow doesn't quite "feel" right. Sorry, can't express it any better at the moment. Are there any alternate suggestions regarding those? -- Cid Highwind 15:51, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Since "Astronomical objects" says it's for "all classifications of astronomical objects and phenomena", Phenomena could sub under it with some reshuffling of the pages already in AO. As for Events and Expeditions, I would agree that the names aren't perfect, but they get the job done, and I'm out of ideas on that front. - 23:16, May 9, 2010 (UTC) :In which case, the new category should perhaps at least be called "Astronomical phenomena", to make sure that no "other" phenomenon ends up in an astronomy subcat. Also - is every phenomenon really an "object"? The above-mentioned siren calls seem to not be. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, May 10, 2010 (UTC) Moving AP up to the same level as AO under Astronomy while moving any phenomena out of the objects cat should fix that. A good number of the pages in Astronomy could potentially end up in a AP category. - 10:53, May 10, 2010 (UTC) Mission and expeditions A category to cover all expeditions and missions within the Federation as well as the ones from other species, such as Arias Expedition, Away mission, Omega training mission, Space shuttle missions, and Vulcanian expedition. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC) :Not a fan of the name, but support the idea. - 13:33, September 21, 2009 (UTC) ::Support. I would suggest simply "Events" as a name. As an aside, I seem to remember this or something similar being discussed before, and it didn't seem to gain traction. --31dot 20:57, September 21, 2009 (UTC) :This idea seems like it could also cover the pages listed for the proposed category below, if it was simply "Events". - 16:46, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :::I don't think an expedition can be subsumed under an "Event" category - or if it can, then this category title is so generic that it won't really be useful. I'm not opposed to the original suggestion, if a good title can be found, but I think "Event" isn't it. -- Cid Highwind 18:28, January 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Expeditions could be a subcat of Events.--31dot 22:30, January 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::"Expeditions and Missions" seems to be a better name, because that would somewhat fit with the terminology used within the franchise, and "events" make me think of things more like a star going supernova or some sort of festival/fair, etc...--Terran Officer 22:49, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Interstellar incidents A category which could feature all interstellar events, including the wars but also Fornax Disaster or maybe the nexus, too. – Tom 11:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC) :Since all the wars are already, or should be, under Category:Conflicts, I don't see the need for another category for them as well, though something like Category:Interstellar phenomena could cover the other two. - 13:31, September 21, 2009 (UTC) ::"Phenomena" is typically used to describe naturally occurring things - not "artificial" ones like wars or disasters. Oppose that suggested title. "Incident" isn't much different from "Event" (see suggestion above), and as such, probably to generic to be anything but a super-category for others. -- Cid Highwind 18:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC) :I would ask that if it allows us to add these pages, would creating a "super-category" really be a bad thing? - 01:34, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::We'd still need a "sub-category" to actually place articles in - otherwise, not necessarily, no. -- Cid Highwind 17:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree with the idea behind it, but it seems to be that "Conflicts" sounds more like the 'parent' category then anything, at least as far as the kind of things as described in the examples go. Though, I must admit... I am a bit of at a lost at what to suggest for terms, because I can agree that not everything would be an 'incident' and 'event' just seems so... off. The race Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres participated in (I forget the exact name, the episode where they wore those flight suits) would be an 'event' but the stand off between seems more like a conflict, or if not that then...well I don't know, an incident of some sort, I guess or something else... damn, this is hard.--Terran Officer 22:55, June 7, 2010 (UTC) Warp technologies and offshoots Right now, everything "warp" related is either shoved into Category:Propulsion technology or Category:Physics. Randomly and haphazardly no less. It would seem to me to make some sense to try to collect these things into a single category that could (possibly) be a subcategory of each of those aforementioned beasts. I'm not convinced on a name yet, but "Warp" would fit best with the currently existing Category:Subspace. -- sulfur 15:51, March 30, 2010 (UTC) :SUPPORT creation of sub-category for Warp technologies, and submit that the category be entitled, "Warp technology"--Obey the Fist!! 16:00, March 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Support, with either name. - 16:07, March 30, 2010 (UTC) I lean toward just "Warp" (partly so that it matches "Subspace") mostly because it is intended to cover all things warp related, not just the technology specifically. -- sulfur 16:09, March 30, 2010 (UTC) :That's fair. Becuase, if you went with my initial suggestion, we'd have to have Warp tech, Warp theory, Warp uses and on and on. I think "Warp" would be the best way to go.--Obey the Fist!! 16:33, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Language sub-categories I was noticing today that we have quite a large number of terms from various Trek cultures (many of which simply redirect to the "X language" article) and got to thinking that it might be worth creating sub-categories for each language (such as "Klingon language", "Romulan language", etc) and categorize the various redirects or terms into those categories, which would be subcategories of Category:Languages and the race to which they are associated (Category:Klingon for the "Klingon language" one, for example). Thoughts? -- sulfur 15:32, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :Support. - 17:22, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Good idea as far as redirects are concerned. However, what about terms that do not redirect to the language article, but instead are the title of an existing article? For example, should Bat'leth (an article about a weapon that "happens to be" Klingon in origin) also be categorized as a "Klingon language" item? I'm not sure about that... -- Cid Highwind 17:32, September 7, 2010 (UTC) I'm leaning to suggest that it should, because it is (in that case) a term in the Klingon language. It so happens to also be a weapon, but it's still a term in the language. My logic behind that is that perhaps people want a list of Klingon (or Romulan, or or or) terms. They see the "Klingon language" category, click that, and then see various terms in there that have their own articles to describe items, concepts, what-have-you. If those are words in that language, why not list them? -- sulfur 17:36, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Could we agree on making it a HIDDENCAT, then? Because, while the reasoning to have all, for example, Klingon terms listed on one page is sound, it would be rather strange to have the category appear on the objects' article. "A bat'leth IS A weapon", but not "a bat'leth IS A klingon language"... ;) -- Cid Highwind 17:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Summary of a conversation Sulfur and I had on IRC: ::*If the above HIDDENCAT suggestion doesn't get consensus, alternatives are to call the category "Klingon language lemma", "Klingon language phrase" or "Klingon language term". All would avoid breaking the "is a" relationship between a categorized article and its category. Sulfur prefers "term". Cid slightly prefers "lemma", but could live with "term". ::*The article Klingon language needs to be either categorized in that category (with a special sort key, putting it to the top), or alternatively be mentioned in the description part of the category. Sulfur and Cid both prefer the latter solution. ::*Also, some sort of link ("For a full list of Klingon terms, see here") should be provided on the Klingon language article. ::-- Cid Highwind 20:01, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :Support the hidden cat option, not a fan of the others. - 20:04, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :::Support any of those ideas, they all seem fair. Though the hidden cat is probably the simplest.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:36, September 8, 2010 (UTC) Quantum physics We certainly have a lot of articles that start with "quantum." I think we should have this cat. Thoughts? -Angry Future Romulan 16:23, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Production POV categories Award categories We have categroies for Category:Academy Award winners and Category:Academy Award nominees, Category:Emmy Award winners and Category:Emmy Award nominees, and Category:Saturn Award winners and Category:Saturn Award nominees. To complete the list we also should have Category:Screen Actors Guild Award winners and Category:Taurus World Stunt Award nominees. Maybe I am missing one more, see this list. – Tom 06:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Support. - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :Come up with a full list, and it shouldn't be a problem I don't think. -- sulfur 15:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC) Video Games performers/ Video Games production staff We have articles (individual articles) for almost all of the comic book and novel writers and artist, having the category Category:Star Trek publication artists. The only orphan here on MA are the video games. Many actors appeared in both, one of the video games and one of the series/films. But there are also several performers and people behind them who worked only on the video games and we currently list them here. They should also have their own articles. – Tom 06:52, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Support - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :Agreed. Surprised that we didn't have this stuff before. I'm not entirely convinced that we should have articles for each individual person in a game, but if we do, we cannot limit it to the performers, and much deal with the production staff too. Then it becomes a question of "which staff do we deal with", since most of the games include the main directors (etc) of each and every company that worked on the game, even if said director had nothing to do with it at all. -- sulfur 15:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC) Production company sub-categories I see that Category:Production companies contains both companies which actually produced Star Trek series and/or films (such as Desilu, Viacom and so forth) and companies which were sub-contracted for things like visual effects and makeup (such as Burman Studio, Gregory Jein, Inc., Digital Domain and so forth). Would it make sense to have subcategories for the latter, perhaps along these lines: *Category:Production companies (parent category) **Category:Visual effects production companies **Category:Makeup effects studios **Category:Post-production companies **Category:Production support companies (for caterers, trailer companies, etc. — e.g. Bobby Weisman Caterers, Inc., Movie Movers, and so forth) We might also consider further subdivisions of the visual effects production companies category, perhaps into sub-sub-categories like Category:Model-making companies, Category:Matte painting companies, and Category:Computer-generated effects companies; however, this might be too complicated, as some companies (such as ILM) would fit into more than one sub-sub-cat. I also don't know whether we want to have categories for things like sound, or if that would go under "post-production". Finally, if we do this, would the companies that produced Star Trek proper have their own subcategory, or would they just stay in the parent cat? I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on any of this. —Josiah Rowe 02:39, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :Do we actually need these sub-cats? I generally believe that we shouldn't add a sub-cat unless there are at least 5-10 pages that would fit into it. - 21:41, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Well, there are certainly >10 pages that could go into a visual effects companies subcat, and probably between 5 and 10 for makeup companies. Not sure about the others, though. —Josiah Rowe 07:44, July 31, 2010 (UTC) :Well, I support any sub-cat that can get 5-10 pages in it. - 07:46, July 31, 2010 (UTC) ::If there are at least 5-6 entries for a category, support. Otherwise, no. I might suggest compiling a list of what would be sorted into where and then listing that here. If that list is suitable (which you should be able to tell, simply by looking at it), it should give a better idea as to what categories would be good, and which would not. -- sulfur 15:37, September 7, 2010 (UTC) The article Production companies could be a starting point: there are 10 companies listed under "Producers and distributors", which could be the basis for a "producers and distributors" category (unless somebody can think of a better name). Visual effects and makeup are lumped together in that article under "Effects"; I had thought that they could be broken down into digital visual effects, model makers, makeup companies and so forth, but it turns out that there are several companies (such as Film Illusions and Image G) which would fit into multiple categories, so perhaps a single "Effects companies" category would be best. Production and post-production subcontractors are listed together on that page as "Filming/Sound/Editing"; can we think of a better term for this group? —Josiah Rowe 05:52, September 8, 2010 (UTC) ::You're missing what I meant. Come up with some suggested categories, and create a page in your user space listing each category suggestion as a header, with the companies listed under each one. No need to group stuff together randomly either. Just group as is logical. -- sulfur 10:12, September 8, 2010 (UTC) OK, I've created such a list at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox. As you will see, some companies fit into multiple subcategories (e.g., Industrial Light & Magic did digital visual effects, matte paintings and model work). There are also a few that I couldn't figure out subcategories for: about six general special effects companies, and three companies that are in Category:Production companies but don't fit into any of the subcategories I've come up with. I hope this is what you were looking for. —Josiah Rowe 04:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :My first big problem with this is there is no "parent category" for all of there, so I suggest Production Companies become that, while the pages currently in that category to be filed under one called Television and Film. The second is that a good number of the various effects pages are also post production, so better names and breakdowns should be found, maybe along physical, digital, and "visual" (special effects) lines, using that in the name of the categories? Third, any category with less than five pages in unnecessary IMO, since they can easily be under the parent category (production companies). All in all though, good work, despite my griping. - 04:35, September 9, 2010 (UTC) Part of the problem is that I don't have a very solid understanding of the different ways in which digital effects are used in production and post-production. Feel free to fiddle with the page, rearrange and improve the arrangements. —Josiah Rowe 04:52, September 9, 2010 (UTC) Oh, and the only categories with less than five entries are "Live event production companies" and "Film production support companies" (and if we can find or create one more page in that category, it would have five — I'd wager that there are caterers or trailer companies or transport companies that have worked on Star Trek production that we don't have pages for). —Josiah Rowe 05:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :Defiant would be a good person to ask about this, as it seems he has a good grasp of what these companies do, based on his additions to the background information sections of episode articles. - 05:05, September 9, 2010 (UTC) I dropped him a line. —Josiah Rowe 05:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Sorry, guys, but I don't think I'm the right person for this. I've only been studying the making of Voyager episodes recently, so I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the companies listed. I've made one of only two contributions I'd be inclined to make; the other would be a preference for the 2 "distributors" cat titles, rather than the 2 "distribution companies". My humble advice would be to keep in mind the distinction between special effects and visual effects; the former being on-set effects (see the production subsection in the article for such an example) and visual effects (FX created after-the-fact, such as both motion control and CGI usages). "Special effects" is also a catch-all term, though, referring to both kinds of effects, much like how "Classical" music refers to all its subgenres, including classical music! Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. --Defiant 09:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I'd suggest Sennim as a candidate for helping out with this; he seems to know more about effects & FX houses (especially generally) than I do. --Defiant 09:56, September 9, 2010 (UTC) OK, I dropped him a line. :) —Josiah Rowe 20:03, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Sennim was helpful in pointing out the distinction between special effects and visual effects. I have rearranged the subcats accordingly. I've also removed the subcategories that had fewer than 5 entries, per Archduk3's suggestion. I've also had an idea about how to resolve the issue that many visual effects are done in post-production: the relevant subcategories can be placed both under the "special effects companies" category and under the "post-production companies" category. The only question is what to do with effects techniques which have during the course of Star Trek production migrated from in-camera effects to post-production digital effects. (I'm thinking specifically of matte paintings here: I believe that in the days of, say, the Genesis Cave in , the matte was a physical painting on glass placed in front of the camera, but these days any matte painting is put in digitally in post-production. And yet "Matte painting companies" is a useful category, as is "post-production companies". Hmmm.) If people could take another glance at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox and see if the current proposed division is plausible, it would be appreciated. :) —Josiah Rowe 06:33, September 14, 2010 (UTC) Record companies The following articles, all in Category:Companies, could have a subcategory of their own, perhaps titled Category:Record companies or Category:Record labels: *Buena Vista Records *GNP Crescendo Records *MCA Records *Peter Pan Records *Retrograde Records *Varèse Sarabande Records Random House Audio and Simon & Schuster might fit in the category too, depending on how it's named and defined. —Josiah Rowe 04:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC) :I support the idea, but I'm not crazy about either name. - 04:37, September 9, 2010 (UTC) ::How about "Music distributors" or "Music publishers"?--31dot 10:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC) I think "Music publishers" is better than "music distributors", but it's worth noting that Peter Pan Records was primarily about stories, not music. For what (little) it's worth, Wikipedia uses , though I agree that it sounds a bit archaic these days. Perhaps something with "audio" in the title might work? —Josiah Rowe 20:17, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Maintenance categories Specific category listings This isn't a formal request for a category and might not be depending on how this discussion goes. Basically I'm wondering why we don't have a category like Category:Memory Alpha images (USS Enterprise-D). It sure would be nice to have all the images of one particular ship in it's own category to browse over and see if an image already exists. As of now Category:Memory Alpha images (starships) contains 1,721 images making it a real pain to find a particular image with a particular ship. This could be expanded further to also include categories for specific people. At least those that appear in a lot of images like Category:Memory Alpha images (Quark). My naming might not be the best but I hope my intentions are explained properly. — Morder (talk) 21:24, December 10, 2009 (UTC) :This sounds like a nice idea in principle. Perhaps the name of the category could include whatever general category of images is involved, such as Category:Memory Alpha starship images (USS Enterprise).--31dot 21:47, December 10, 2009 (UTC) ::Definitely, yes! :) However, I think the prefix should stay "Memory Alpha images", for proper sorting of the categories themselves. -- Cid Highwind 22:08, December 10, 2009 (UTC) Well, the next question of this particular proposal would be where to draw the line. In particular we have tons of photos of say the Enterprise but maybe only 1 of ''Alice''. In addition I propose that any image that contains more than one ship must contain more than one category. Example: File:Ambassador starboard of Galaxy.jpg - however it becomes unweildly when there is a battle scene. In addition what about images that contain no named vessels - or only one like File:Andorian fleet.jpg should the category then be something like Category:Memory Alpha images (Andorian starship)? Lots to think about before this even get's started... — Morder (talk) 22:18, December 10, 2009 (UTC) ::There's something about this in the archived discussion over at Category talk:Memory Alpha images, already. In general, I think it would be a good idea to follow the basic idea of categorization, and try to become more specific with each level of subcategories. A subcategory of "(starships)" could be "(Federation starships)", a subcategory of that could be the aforementioned "(USS Enterprise-D)". An image showing two or more Federation starships would then be listed in the "Federation starships" category, and only in one of the individual starship categories if that starship is the major focus of the image - after all, keep in mind that image categories are mostly for editors, not for readers. Someone looking for an image showing two Fed starships probably wouldn't search the "Enterprise" category, and vice versa. If a category would only contain one, or very few, images, it is unnecessary IMO. -- Cid Highwind 23:16, December 10, 2009 (UTC) :::I'm for this idea, and as Cid said above, the categories should get more specific with each level. My suggestion would be to have a "(Galaxy Class)" category before a "(USS Enterprise-D)" category. As most of our images of the Galaxy class class are of the Enterprise, not counting Dominion War battles, a ship specific category may not be needed. - 00:05, December 11, 2009 (UTC) ---- *Category:Memory Alpha images (starships) **Category:Memory Alpha images (Federation starships) ***Category:Memory Alpha images (Galaxy class starships) **Category:Memory Alpha images (Klingon starships) ***Category:Memory Alpha images (Klingon Bird-of-Prey starships) Is everyone cool with the naming scheme and so forth in this tree? - 06:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC) :Hrm... I like the idea of splitting them by "alignment", but what about ships that aren't Federation, Klingon, Romulan, or something "standard"? Where do they fit into. -- sulfur 15:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC) They could just be left in the top category for now, since I would like to see what's left before suggesting any other sub-cats. - 17:30, September 7, 2010 (UTC) So this has been done for the starships category. I'm not convinced that breaking down the species cats by people is a good idea, mainly for naming reasons, so is there any support for that? Also, are there any other subcats of starships that I didn't see? Behind the scenes images I don't really have a good name for this yet, maybe just Category:Memory Alpha images (production)?, but we have several behind the scenes images that don't fall into either production material or production staff. - 11:36, August 9, 2010 (UTC) :"Production material" is fine for me. And if it includes any production staff, then that category too. -- sulfur 11:53, August 9, 2010 (UTC) Material, when suggested, was for the actual material used in production, like sketches and models. The staff, performers, and stunt performers cats seem more for a portrait image of the person, instead of a picture of so-and-so directing on set. It would be a lot easier to find the actual behind the scenes images without having to go through all the portraits and models and sketches and etc. - 12:43, August 9, 2010 (UTC) :"Performers", for the performers, "Production staff" for the staff, "production material" for the other stuff. Do we possibly want a "Production" as a top-level category for those? I can see that, sure. -- sulfur 15:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC) I'm good with that as the top cat, but I still think the actual behind the scenes images should be separated from the rest. - 17:30, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "behind the scenes" images really vs "production material". Can you perhaps create a list and give some specific examples? -- sulfur 15:32, September 19, 2010 (UTC) ::There's a heap of them I've added at . These include File:Shooting Alter Ego.jpg, File:Shooting The Cloud.jpg and even File:Shooting The Chute.jpg. --Defiant 11:16, October 5, 2010 (UTC) File:Filming Emissary.jpg is another good example. That's a "behind the scenes" image instead of an image of material used in production, which is the category it's currently in. A "behind the scenes" category could be a sub-category of the "production" category, along with the rest of the production categories. - 12:12, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :I've created a "production" super-category and moved "production staff" and "production material" under it. For 90% of the behind the scenes images that we have (having looked through them), they are of either performers or production staff and should belong in those categories. Are you suggesting that we also add them to a "behind-the-scenes" category? -- sulfur 12:46, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think a good number may end up being all three. File:Klingon Bird-of-Prey production discussion.jpg has a piece of production material and production staff while being a behind the scenes image. When I see something like File:Klingon Bird-of-Prey and humpback whale filming.jpg, I see a shot of the set as a whole way before I think of any of the material used, so I would question if that one should remain in the material category at all. I wish I could be clearer, but I'm hitting a wall. - 13:51, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :Right, I think that I see what you are getting at. The first should have been in production staff from the get-go really (and is now), and the second might fit best in simply the "production" category. Which could become the "catch-all" for behind the scenes material that is not primarily people (staff, performers) or something that is better suited to the other sub-categories. -- sulfur 13:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC) I'll should have time go through them all these later today, so I'll see what shakes loose before moving forward here, assuming you don't get to it before me. - 14:11, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd help out too, if I could; seemingly, the lack of functioning js means I'm unable to affect the categories of any file. I can't see a way to do so, at least! --Defiant 14:16, October 5, 2010 (UTC) So "behind the scenes" is synonymous with "candid photos on set/location". I think I got them all, even though I resisted adding the category to photos of less than three people in most cases, since with the js down I can't remove a category from a file/page (monobook isn't loading at all, go figure). - 05:01, October 6, 2010 (UTC) Medicine, drugs, and medical equipment We have a number of things that would fall into a "medical" category (not 100% on a name for it yet), several of which are simply in the "images" top level category, others (like hyposprays) are in "technology". -- sulfur 15:32, September 19, 2010 (UTC) Clothing articles This would apply to images of articles of clothing (ie, robes, boots, etc), not ones of people in them, unless the image is specifically to show an article of clothing rather than the person wearing it. -- sulfur 15:32, September 19, 2010 (UTC)